A few months from now the only thing between your ass and a concentration camp will be

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

No matter who you support today, including Edwards and Kucinich, that stark fact remains.

So when we deliver the gut-shot de jour, it might be appropriate to ask ourselves... "is this something I really want to say about a person who has a 50-50 chance of being my only hope of a Supreme Court that disapproves of K-9 cops setting police dogs loose in my car, and to examine my person at random road-blocks?"

No probable cause... just random check-points, like in Iraq. Just stopping everyone on the road and having them examined by a dog.

That case was decided by one vote. (Deciding vote Sandra O'Connor said she couldn't find a specific constitutional objection, but that when something is straight out of a film about Nazi Germany there must be SOMETHING wrong with it.)

[Common Sense Party]

1. Do you have a link to info re: this vote? Thanks. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Not off-hand... was years ago. The irony is that O'Connor was right... given the horrible precedents

there was no particular reason to draw the line at dogs. The court had already approved of random check-point drug searches by humans, so the addition of drug-sniffing dogs was a minor wrinkle.

But at least she understood that there is an unwritten right against Nazi atmospherics.



Maybe someone reading this remembers the case.

[gdaerin]

2. You make a strong argument!

[grasswire]

4. John Edwards is a stronger advocate, I believe

I don't think either Hillary or Obama will eschew authoritarianism.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. My argument is only practical. (Kucinich would also be anti-authoritarian.)

[Mythsaje]

6. Bullshit. n/t

[AndyTiedye]

7. Only if They Can Get Elected

I still don't see how either of them gets enough electoral votes to win.

What states can they pick up that Kerry lost?